BelgiumFury

I think this is an interesting idea, i'll see if we can do something with it.

It baffles me how many people are suddenly once seeing a new proposal that doesn't reduce player agency going back to "yeah make a hard cap". In my opinion hard caps suck, player agency is great. Giving people more choices (even if those come at a "price" as what is happening here) should be encouraged. If it was my magic fantasy dreamland world, a city 40 should be able to declare on a city one. Sadly enough that's really not balanced (and nearly impossible to balance with the current mechanics; as the cost would have to be one which isn't decided by militairy but economics, whole diffrent story though.) This change gives a slight nerf to bigger players, and alliances with higher tiers (Varying from Grumpy, to even for example Rose [compared to for example the immortals]). But it still gives the advantage to the bigger players as it should be. Some people are calling this worse than murder, saying how it would eliminate city advantage, and that my friends is simply not true. Ps: to the one guy who said NPO would be happy with this change: unironically worst argument i've ever seen lmfao. I quite frankly don't care what an alliance that deleted 75455 years ago, and will never return would think. Arguably they would also not really gain any benefit from this change if they would still exist because theyd be tiered well in the 30s by now.

usually I produce aluminium but I couldn't find (read i was too lazy) to find an optimized build after we had to mill up recently. That being said I like there is some versitility in the food prices right now; and i like some people are keepign them high with wars it's good. Im sure they will go down again (because remember 6 months ago they were very much fine); it's going to be allright. I'd like it if it was possible in some way to have other resources have similar complete crazyness.

No problem; glad this issue was brought to our attention so it could be patched. And yeah i doubt a timer on selling cities will come, the economic suicide would not make it worth it.

I personally don't mind this at all; but the projects should indeed be dissabled when going under the required city count. Ill bring this up to village right now actually.

No, no i don't like that idea at all actually.

Would it be reasonable to seperate Information spy op slots offensively from other spy ops?

Number one and five are interesting but i don't have my mind made up on it for now. Number 2-4 though sound really good to me.

I dont think this is realistic because there are no sub communities (alliances) that don't have English as language of operation.

1: You were an IA head and were very close friends with these people? Most prominent figures (outside of you) stayed. You left with a group of your friends. 2: We must have had a type of miscommunication here, after a merger it is indeed our goal to have an alliance merge into us completly. I didn't have any intention to deny that, appologies. I said our goal wasnt to intentionally cause a splinter. 3 Okay.

of course never claimed otherwise. Yes I am aware. This splinter was lead by someone who didn't feel at home in rose. This splinter was (from govt members) only continued by one IA high govt, and more importantly it was never our intentntion. However, I feel like i should highlight the majority of high govt and leadership joined and stayed in rose. It is dissapointing the merger had to end like this and it was never our intention. It's particularly funny because the only relevant person who was upset was Han Solo, the same person you discredit in your next point. Even more funny is that he has left GATO by now, should I blame Clock for a splinter now? After a peace deal i feel like you cant really do a lot can you? Are you going to be publicly upset as GATO? No hate towards GATO but they are a very minor power, without leverage to really complain a lot. It wasn't a war goal, it was added after the war, on an alliance that I would not consider a main beligerent. An alliance of their size can not really carry the burden of losing hundreds of millions, and an alliance of their size can not unilaterally decide to extend the war like Rose, TKR or etc could. And? I am a Rose member with minimal FA influence within my own alliance. I have 0 influence in Grumpy (as it should be lol) and essentially the same in TS.

and? It's not because I expect people to be annoying that I won't call people out for it. I have in the past had people quit this game because of toxicity when they went outside of Rose into Orbis. I have Rose members talk to me saying they consider quitting the game because of how toxic people are in the wider game. So maybe I should accept it, but I won't take it, and to be quite frank neither should anyone else. 100%. I have brought this up in private myself. Forcing an alliance to split is a true shame. When talking to some rose member when they didn't get it, I basically asked them how they'd feel if rose was forced to do the same thing (as unlikely as that is). I don't think anyone wants to be utterly humilated to such a degree (it's nothing less).

clearly not the problem I was pointing to. Calli did not say it was bad (or good) she asked directly what this term would mean. Is it just both parties agreeing they'll keep other alliances off, does it mean gato has to leave, does it mean gato has to split? She askes for concrete details. However to your (off topic) point can you point to any recent treaty rose made where we forced anyone off pink (or whatever color we were at the time).

you're delusional mate

So why exactly do you have to be such a massive PoS to my alliance mate? A treaty was kept vague (on purpose quite probably) and asking for clarification what this term meant isn't some crazy ask. Why is being kind in this community so hard for some people; this isn't Kindergarten and War.

This. 💯

I want to add to this. First of all, there is something as blitz advantage, and I think it's good. This game should encourage taking initiative and going in balls first. Should it be the main decider? Perhaps not but I don't think it is either. I think currently tiering / numbers is equally relevant. Removing blitz advantage by allowing a (full) rebuild (for all intents and purposes) makes the wars decided purely on a tiering and numbers basis. Did a great blitz and knocked down their whales / numerical superiority? Good job, good luck doing it again, and again! A blitz is currently the hardest part to pull off successfully of the war. And this proposal is planning to kill it. (or at least nerf it significantly) I am all for making wars less decided from day one. I want longer wars if that means longer wars will be a sign of skill (and in extension not just numbers / tiering). Sadly enough I do not believe this proposed change will make the game more skillful, quite the opposite in fact. In that light I can not encourage this proposal. And I hope others can agree with me on this.

I'll do it; I've been pretty anti baseball ever since NPOLT baseball exploitation. There you go, im an actual person who actually playes this game and wants baseball to be poofed. (And I have mostly held this opinion for +- 2 years now). Back in the day I was with a small group of people who tracked baseball earnings (pre NPOLT nerf), and from that day on, i don't like it. Do you have to agree with that? No, you don't. But it's not like nobody agrees with this take of him.

This. Baseball was meant to be purely a time sink, and that's all.

I agree and I don't think anyone claims you do. The point I am making (from the "anti-baseball" camp). Is that I don't like that an inconsequential (or at least a mechanic that was not intended to be meta defining) has the potential to be meta defining if someone clicks for 2 hours in an end. Clicking 2 hours on end is what cookie clicker is for, not PnW. But thats my 50 cents.

I agree; fairness and stability of investement is fair and important. Just like we wouldn't nerf expensive projects if people have them without compensation, the same should apply here. I propose once the details and bits have been finalized we enter a thirty day grace period where everything keeps going as it does now. Once this grace period starts we place a fancy announcement at the top of the baseball page, saying baseball will be nerfed on X date, then people can decide to keep investing or not doing so (obviously knowing the risk ahead of time). A grace period of a month should be more than enough to return the 40M and even make some good profit. Will also be easier to code than a whole refund.

So generally; in global wars, doing more resistance damage is worse. For raiding its good sure. But in a global when beige cycling you'd much prefer to be able to do 8, or hell even 9 attacks without beiging them. Now with ships its slightly (very slightly) more nuanced because of one ship beiging and because ship vs infra is kinda shit. (so you usually don't want to do a ship vs infra because as SRD said, it's basically dropping thousand(s) of munis and gas to see big number go up, which usually is not worth it. But the bigger point still remains.

dew it.

I agree with both these points, i think it needs a buff, but I don't think that buff needs to be 500 infra. What about just multiplying it by two instead of ten; or for example the destruction of one nation improvement.